Skip to main content

Monopoly Welfare Gains and the Costs of Decentralization

  • Chapter
Welfare aspects of industrial markets

Part of the book series: Nijenrode Studies in Economics ((NIEC,volume 2))

  • 72 Accesses

Abstract

One of the most well-known results from the standard micro theory is that competition is more efficient than monopoly. This result seems to be taken for granted in the antitrust policy of most countries. Even if most economists do not question the result, a fervent discussion about the quantitative degree of welfare losses due to monopoly has taken place in recent years. The analysis is largely based on losses of consumer surplus. The social welfare loss (the deadweight loss) arising from monopoly refers to the net reduction of consumers’ surplus, i.e. the excess of the loss of consumers’ surplus over the monopolist’s gain in profits, the latter being regarded as a transfer of income from the consumers. Thus the concept of welfare losses or welfare gains utilized for this purpose totally neglects the distributional consequences of changes in resource allocation. The neoclassical approach to this issue is outlined in Figure 1. It produces an unambigous loss of social welfare from market power and constitutes a forceful case in favour of an antitrust policy (see Rowley 1973).

The author wishes to thank Harold Dickson, Leif Johansen and Ajit Singh for their valuable comments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Bergson, A., On Monopoly Welfare Losses.American Economic Review63 (5), 853–870, 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  • Comanor, W. S. and H. Leibenstein, Allocative Efficiency, X-Efficiency and the Measurement of Welfare Losses.Economica36, 304–309, 1969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Prano, M. E. and J. B. Nugent, Economies as an Antitrust Defence: Comment.American Economic Review59 (5), 947–953,1969.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson Esposito, F. and L. Esposito, Excess Capacity and Market Structure.Review of Economics and Statistics56 (2), 188–194, 1974.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frisch, R.,Theory of Production, D. Reidel Publishing Co/Dordrecht-Holland, 1965.

    Google Scholar 

  • Førsund, R. F. and L. Hjalmarsson, On the Measurement of Productive Efficiency,Swedish Journal of Economics76 (2), 141–154, 1974.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haldi, J. and D. Whitcomb, Economies of scale in Industrial Plants.Journal of Political Economy75 (4), 373–385, 1967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harberger, A. C., Monopoly and Resource Allocation.American Economic Review44, 77–87, 1954.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hjalmarsson, L., Optimal Structural Change and Related Concepts.Swedish Journal of Economics75 (2), 1973.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hjalmarsson, L ., The Size Distribution of Establishments and Firms Derived from an Optimal Process of Capacity Expansion.European Economic Review5,1974.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johansen, L.,Production Functions, North Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamerschen, D. R., Welfare Losses from Monopoly.Western Economic Journal1966 (4), 221–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koo, S-E., A Note on the Social Welfare Loss Due to Monopoly.Southern Economic Journal37 (2), 212–214, 1970.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leibenstein, H., Allocative Efficiency vs. X-efficiency.American Economic Review56 (3), 392–415, 1966.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parry, T. G., Plant Size, Capacity Utilization and Economic Efficiency: Foreign Investment in the Australian Chemical Industry.Economic Record50 (2), 218–244, 1974.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pratten, C. F ., Economies of Scale in Manufacturing Industries, Department of applied economicsOccasional PapersNo. 28, Cambridge University Press, 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renck, O.,Investeringsbedo∂mning i några svenska fo∂retag. (Investment appraisal in some Swedish firms) Nordstedt Stockholm 1966. (Second printing 1972).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ribrandt, G .,Stordriftsfordelar inom industriproduktionen, SOU 1970: 30 Stockholm 1970. (Economics of scale in industrial production). (The Swedish Government

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, P ., Economies as an Antitrust Defense: Comment.American Economic Review58 (5), 1371- 1372,1968.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowley, C. K.,Antitrust and Economic Efficiency, Macmillan Studies in Economics London 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartzman, D., The Burden of Monopoly.Journal of Political Economy68 (6), 627–630,1960.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, R.,Oligopoly. Lexington Books, D. C. Heath and Company Lexington 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegfried, J. and T. Tiemann, The Welfare Costs of Monopoly: An Inter-Industry Analysis.Economic Inquiry12 (2), 190–203, 1974.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silberston, A., Economies of Scale in Theory and Practice.Economic Journal82 (special issue), 369- 391,1972.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stigler, G. J., The Statistics of Monopoly and Merger.Journal of Political Economy64 (1), 33–40, 1956.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutton, C. J., Advertising, Concentration and Competition,Economic Journal84 (1), 56–69, 1974.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E., Economies as an Antitrust Defense: The Welfare Trade-offs.American Economic Review58 (1), 18–36,1968.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E., Economies as an Antitrust Defense: Correction and Reply.American Economic Review58 (5), 1372–1376,1968.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E ., Economies as an Antitrust Defense: Reply.American Economic Review59 (5), 954- 959,1969.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wohlin, L.,Skogsindustrins strukturomvandling och expansionsmojlighet. Industrins Utredningsinstitut, Stockholm 1970 with an English summary: Forest-Based Industries: Structural Change and Growth Potentials.

    Google Scholar 

  • Worcester, D. A. Jr., New Estimates of the Welfare Loss to Monopoly United States: 1956–1969.Southern Economic Journal40 (2), 234–245, 1973.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

A. P. Jacquemin H. W. de Jong

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1977 H. E. Stenfert Kroese B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hjalmarsson, L. (1977). Monopoly Welfare Gains and the Costs of Decentralization. In: Jacquemin, A.P., de Jong, H.W. (eds) Welfare aspects of industrial markets. Nijenrode Studies in Economics, vol 2. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-4231-1_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-4231-1_11

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4613-4233-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4613-4231-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics